It sounds like a good case... if you're a credulous believer in religion and do not question things....and if you are stupid enough to confuse correlation and cause, and to ignore the natural outcome of a system (and to arbitrarily tie the correlated/caused confused data to the common element of the population being analyzed without comparing that population to a different population to see if it is the system, or the nature of each individual member in the population). First, let's look at how he's blurred the line between what would be referred to as a spiritual illness (for those who follow a particular religion opposed to homosexuality) and physical illness related to one's health. It's not terribly significant in terms of diffusing the statistics he's presented, but it's important in illustrating the mindset that the analyst was in when they conducted a supposedly "scientific" analysis. They've gone data mining for descriptive statistics of the gay population and were motivated on the premise that homosexuality was harmful because "god" sent an unerring stenographer(s) down to earth to transcribe the Bible and that's what got printed. Their initial motivation was not logical because they are saying that if I am gay, I have an illness. But the gay population, collectively, has a moral illness. They then use the statistics from the population as a whole (again, without considering systemic differences from the straight population) to suggest that each member of the population has a physical illness. If I'm wrong about that, and they assert that each member has a moral illness, then I'll refer them to all of the assumption that their Faith relies on....
He's also distorted the definition of 'evidence' and rested his case blindly on it.
"... homosexual behavior doesn't harm anyone. But the evidence doesn't support that notion. Homosexuals more likely to suffer from depression: "A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com....the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle...the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual. The lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual."
Lets phrase this properly: Homosexual behaviour doesn't harm anyone. But the evidence doesn't support that notion. A higher proportion of the homosexual population suffers from depression (**google "conflation"...he's mixed up x with F(x) for the math geeks out there.). A new study revealed that the homosexual population suffers from depression disproportionately, by a factor of 50%. Substance abuse, a frequent problem in depressed individuals in the straight population was found to be only equally as common in depressed gay individuals. (AKA, he's implying that a higher proportion of gays use more drugs, when the reality is that the likelihood of drug abuse when you're depressed is higher and a higher proportion of the population is depressed...)"
Consider how an appointment with a psychiatrist might proceed: you're diagnosed with depression. Depression is not evidence for depression. You need evidence to diagnose depression (and Slick has identified higher depression and cited a common variable in all members of the population as it's sole cause). Digging deeper, the psychiatrist might examine your life for evidence that it is not a symptom of homosexuality. It's clear that enough of the depression in the gay community is not a result of simply being gay, but being in a population that is a minority and within a larger population that pressures the minority community as if it were the natural authority on the minority community. He's neglected the evidence entirely and presented a observation as evidence for itself.
He also speaks of a significantly shorter lifespan for gays in the last sentence of the quote I pasted. He does not, however, accurately define the sample population from which that statistic was drawn. He's suggesting that gays simply die earlier (hey, only the good die young...) as a result of being gay. A few sentences later, he states, "Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark - the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality - both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death." IF AIDS IS THE CAUSE OF DEATH. He's presented one sided data - straight people who contract AIDS usually die in their early 50s too, so that raises the alarm bells on the defence of his hypothesis that being gay is harmful. He should clarify his hypothesis by saying: Being gay is more harmful than being straight. AIDS doesn't give fuck who you fuck once you've got it.
He's also created a false pairing between tolerance of gays and AIDS health realities. Barring suicide as an early cause of death, cultural tolerance of gays has no bearing on AIDS survival rates. He's simply said "Even when we're nice to them, the 'Homosexualitis' still takes em' down." This cunt of an author has presented a logically invalid argument and dumped it on a huge mass of highly credulous people. Now let's take a look at why AIDS rates are so high in the gay community to begin with. My goal is to break the false correlation/cause link that Slick has established and show that the gay population is naturally going to have a MUCH higher % of people who have AIDS, and that it would be no different if the gay population were straight. In other words, the reason AIDS rates are so much higher is not because of the qualities of the population, but the size of the population alone.
My being gay doesn't intrinsically make me more vulnerable to AIDS. My lack of protection does, and a condom protects a straight man as well as a gay man man. That alone leaves being gay as the sole difference, but there is no difference in the effectiveness of the protection. Therefore, being gay has fuck all to do with it. Another example of this would be that I could remain entirely abstinent for a lifetime. So could the entire gay population and then no transmission would occur and no gay people would have AIDS. Thus, using AIDS as a statistic to prove that homosexuality is intrinsically harmful is logically invalid. If he wishes to suggest that homosexuality is a medical illness, then there must be a greater intrinsic likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS. If he wishes to pitch it as a moral illness, then he cannot use HIV/AIDS rates without acknowledging that transmission occurs only through unprotected sex (in large part). If I had AIDS and had unprotected sex with a woman, and then with a gay man, they'd both have HIV. Sexual orientation has very little to do with the cells in your body and how defensive they are against HIV. In either case, I've already caught him either having false motivations, and even if they were true, a false result. Now look at the mechanics of transmission of AIDS through the gay population vs the straight population. To do this, we'll use 1 straight man and 1 gay man. Each will have the same number of sexual partners (4 for this example). That way, if being gay is really harmful for its own sake rather than for the naturally smaller size of the gay population compared to the straight population, then we'll see it.
Say 20% of the population is homosexual (I'm making an exaggerated example) and 50% of the population is male and 50% female. If the ENTIRE population is 100 people, then we have 10 gay males and 10 lesbians. Now suppose that this population of 100 people is perfectly healthy - no HIV at all. How do the people in the gay population act compared to the straight? Using the same number of sexual partners allows us to make the gay man's behaviour exactly the same as the straight man's. Each straight man will have sex with 4 woman,